Frank Hecker

A better plan for Symphony Woods

8 minute read

If you really want to “save Symphony Woods” then the Inner Arbor plan
is the best one on offer.

Some people are now promoting the
Paumier plan
as a way to “save Symphony Woods”. But two years ago people concerned
about preserving Symphony Woods were
signing a petition against the Paumier plan
and calling instead for “a unique park with meandering pathways that
connect amenities and honor the natural woods”. They couldn’t know it
then, but those petitioners were asking for the kind of Symphony Woods
park that will be provided by the current Inner Arbor plan.

Previously I rendered
my own verdict
on Cy Paumier’s plan for Symphony Woods, and relayed the verdicts of
the Howard County
Design Advisory Panel [PDF]
and then the
Planning Board [PDF].
Note that the Planning Board actually
approved the overall Final Development Plan
for the Merriweather-Symphony Woods Neighborhood presented by the
Columbia Association, including having the area host a system of
walkways and various other proposed features like a café, an outdoor
amphitheater, a children’s play area, and (last but not least) a
fountain. However they recommended moving to a system of meandering
paths rather than formal walkways, and urged closer integration of the
park with the Merriweather Post Pavilion property.

This “Inner Arbor” plan as originally presented was not an exact
replacement for the Paumier plan, but was instead a high-level plan
for the entire northeast and eastern portion of Symphony Woods; thus
it included elements (like a replacement for Toby’s Dinner Theater and
a new CA headquarters) that were never part of the Paumier
plan. However since then the Inner Arbor plan has evolved into a plan
specifically for the northern portion of Symphony Woods, the same area
covered by the Paumier plan, and in an important sense it can be
thought of simply as a continuation of and improvement on the Paumier
plan, addressing that plan’s deficiencies as identified by the
Planning Board and Design Advisory Panel.

The best place to start to appreciate that point is not with the Inner
Arbor structures but rather with the walkway system proposed as part
of the current Inner Arbor plan as
recently presented
to the Howard County Design Advisory Panel.1 Note that the plan
fully implements the Planning Board recommendation to use meandering
paths. This allows paths to be routed to avoid trees and thereby
minimize the number of trees needing removal.

Using meandering paths also means that the paths can follow the “lay
of the land” and thus avoid steep slopes and the need for stairs as
much as possible. As shown in the image above, most of the walkways
(shown in green) are from 1% to 5% grade and are thus fully accessible
to people using wheelchairs or who otherwise have difficulty
walking. Most of the remaining paths (shown in blue), though having
somewhat steeper grades in some places, still fall within the relevant
ADA guidelines
as applied to park trails.
Only a few paths (shown in red) have steeper slopes that might require
stairs. (One of the places requiring stairs is the entrance across
from the mall access road, as in the Paumier plan, although unlike the
Paumier plan this entrance is not the primary focal point of the
design.)

The Inner Arbor plan also replaces the relatively awkward north-south
alignment of the Paumier paths with a more natural east-west alignment
that better conforms to the shape and orientation of the northern part
of Symphony Woods. This change in alignment allows for longer paths
that provide more opportunities to walk within the park, including the
more scenic forest in the eastern and northeastern area of the park,
which was to a large degree a “no go” area in the Paumier plan. This
is made possible in part by an elevated boardwalk that allows visitors
to enter at the northeastern corner of the park, at the intersection
of Little Patuxent Parkway and South Entrance Road, near the Central
Branch library and on the
multi-use pathway
to Lake Kittamaqundi. The boardwalk carries them through the
northeastern portion of the park above the forest floor, and allows
them to reach the Chrysalis amphitheater over a fully-accessible
route.

Speaking of the Chrysalis, as noted previously the Final Development
Plan based on the Paumier design envisioned various park features in
addition to the walkways, including a pavilion and café (combined or
separate), a fountain (interactive or otherwise), a children’s play
area, public art, and an outdoor “shared use” amphitheater that could
be used for both Merriweather events (e.g., as a second stage) or for
events in Symphony Woods proper (e.g., Wine in the Woods). The current
Inner Arbor plan makes provision one way or the other for all those
elements, and (unlike the Paumier plan) includes detailed designs for
almost all of them.2 Put another way, almost every element in the
current Inner Arbor plan is referenced in the Final Development Plan
previously approved by the Planning Board.

Inner Arbor park features relative to their locations in
the Paumier plan. Click for higher-resolution version. Adapted from
sheet 3 of FDP-DC-MSW-1, Downtown Columbia Merriweather-Symphony Woods
Neighborhood Final Development Plan, and slides 25-33 of the Inner
Arbor Trust presentation to the Design Advisory Panel.

The major difference from the Paumier plan is thus not the proposed
park features themselves, but rather that the park features were moved
to different locations within Symphony Woods, in order to improve
integration with Merriweather Post Pavilion and/or to address other
issues.

In particular, the Paumier plan proposed a pavilion and café located
halfway between the two Merriweather entrances, next to the
Merriweather Post Pavilion restrooms. In the Inner Arbor plan the
corresponding structure, the Butterfly, is moved next to the
Merriweather VIP parking lot, near the east entrance of Merriweather
Post Pavilion, so that its shared use with Merriweather does not
require opening up a new entrance (as the Paumier plan would have).

In the Paumier plan the children’s play area was proposed to be
located in the Butterfly’s location; in the Inner Arbor plan the
corresponding feature, the Merriground, is moved into the park proper,
in a more natural setting. Finally, in the Paumier plan the proposed
shared-use amphitheater was to be located next to the children’s play
area, relatively close to Merriweather. In the Inner Arbor plan the
corresponding structure, the Chrysalis, is moved to the east. This
takes it down a hill somewhat, providing more space for the audience
and decreasing possible bleed-over of sights and sounds from the
Merriweather Post Pavilion to the Chrysalis and vice versa (e.g., when
the Chrysalis is used as a shared stage).

The Paumier plan referenced possible public art in the park. That
function is fulfilled in the Inner Arbor plan by the Merriweather
Horns sound sculptures. The fountain envisioned in the Paumier plan is
not in the Inner Arbor plan proper, because the proposal is to put the
fountain not in Symphony Woods itself but rather within the
Merriweather Post Pavilion property as part of a strategy to integrate
the two areas (as recommended by the Planning Board).

Another part of that integration is a proposal to tear down the
current Merriweather fence (at least on the north side) and provide a
substitute for it in the form of the Caterpillar, a tubular berm
intended to separate the area of Symphony Woods close to Merriweather
from the main area of the park. The Caterpillar thus provides access
control for Merriweather Post Pavilion itself during Merriweather
events, and also bounds a shared space for a possible fountain and
other amenities in the area straddling the Merriweather/Symphony Woods
boundary, making the fountain and its associated plaza accessible to
visitors to Symphony Woods on days when there are no events at
Merriweather Post Pavilion.

In conclusion: The Inner Arbor plan is more respectful of the
alignment and topography of Symphony Woods than the Paumier plan,
provides a better walking experience for visitors, sites the various
park amenities more intelligently, integrates Symphony Woods much
better with Merriweather Post Pavilion, and (last but certainly not
least) requires significantly fewer trees to be removed (particularly
when the park amenities are accounted for).

Finally, thanks to the comprehensive and detailed work that has been
done by the Inner Arbor team (work that for whatever reason was never
done for the Paumier plan), the current Inner Arbor plan is an example
of the design excellence that can be produced by talented local firms
working in concert with leading designers and architects from around
the world, and meets
the challenge that Del. Elizabeth Bobo set
for those designing the future of Columbia Town Center:

There is great anticipation in the community of bold, creative
public spaces …. Where are the grand designs that excite the spirit
and capture the soul, becoming material for textbooks to train
future architects and planners? Columbia, Mr. Rouse’s “next America”
and arguably the most successful new town in the world, is a perfect
home for them.

This concludes my series on the Paumier plan and the Inner Arbor plan
as compared to it. In future posts I’ll briefly revisit the Inner
Arbor plan as presented to the Design Advisory Panel, and comment on
some of the changes since my original series of Inner Arbor posts.

To give a rough indication of the relative completeness of the two plans, the presentation to the Design Advisory Panel for the Paumier plan contained 36 slides, while the Inner Arbor presentation to the DAP contained 236. ↩